Wisconsin Director of State Courts Language Access Plan

Transcription

1 AttAtta This Language Access Plan serves as the blueprint for ensuring language assistance is provided to all Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals involved in the Wisconsin Court System. Wisconsin Director of State Courts Language Access Plan

2 Contents Section I. Policy Directive and Legal Basis... 3 Section II. Needs Assessment... 4 Population... 4 Table 1: Household Languages other than English Aged 5 or Older with LEP Percentage... 4 US Department of Justice (USDOJ) Four-Factor Test... 4 Chart 1: County Interpreter Costs and County Reported Reimbursement ( )... 6 Statewide Responsibilities... 6 Supreme Court and Court of Appeals... 6 Circuit Court Responsibilities... 6 Municipal Court Responsibilities... 7 Administrative Office Responsibilities... 7 Section III. Court Interpreter Program... 7 Legislative and Funding Efforts... 7 Interpreter Training and Certification Testing... 8 Interpreter Roster... 9 Interpreter Oral Testing and Certification Translation of Vital Statewide Court Forms Table 3: Vital Form Translations Participation with NCSC Activities Summit on Language Access in the Courts Future Activities Section IV. Language Access Resources Ensuring Quality Services Table 4: 2012 Certified Interpreter Hours and Percent by Language Website Language Access Tools Circuit Court Language Access Plans Procedures for Administrative Offices Section V. Training Education and Training Specific LEP training for circuit court staff and other court related offices rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

3 Section VI. Public Input Section VII. Complaint Procedure Section VIII. Monitoring Evaluation of the Statewide LAP Evaluation of the Circuit Court LAPs Language Access Contact Person for the State Courts rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

4 Section I. Policy Directive and Legal Basis It is the policy of the Wisconsin s Director of State Courts Office (hereinafter Director s Office ) to ensure the statewide court system, including its administrative offices, provides meaningful language access to its services for people who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP). Under Wis. Stat (1)(b)1&2, LEP is defined as: 1. The inability, because of the use of a language other than English, to adequately understand or communicate effectively in English in a court proceeding; 2. The inability, due to a speech impairment, hearing loss, deafness, deaf-blindness, or other disability, to adequately hear, understand, or communicate effectively in English in a court proceeding. This document serves as the Language Access Plan (LAP) for the Wisconsin Court System. It is designed to respond to constitutional due process and equal protection requirements, federal statutory and regulatory requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter ADA ) 1 and obligations imposed under the Wisconsin state constitution, statutes and rules. This plan documents past initiatives which demonstrate how the Director s Office has implemented its policies ensuring language assistance is provided to all court users as well as future efforts designed to enhance the quality of the language services provided. Title VI and Title VI regulations provide: No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. Executive Order (EO) 13166, "Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency," requires Federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any need for services to those with LEP and develop and implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful access to them. EO also requires federal agencies to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to their LEP applicants and beneficiaries. To assist government agencies in carrying out these responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a Policy Guidance Document, Enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 National Origin Discrimination Against Persons with Limited English Proficiency (LEP Guidance)." This LEP Guidance sets forth the compliance standards that recipients of federal financial assistance must follow to ensure that their programs and activities normally provided in English are accessible to LEP persons and do not discriminate on the basis of national origin in violation of Title VI's prohibition against national origin discrimination. 1 Relevant federal law includes Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L , 78 Stat. 241, 42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (Pub.L , 82 Stat. 197, 42 U.S.C. 3711, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C (2000)). rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

5 In state fiscal year (fiscal year ending June 30, 2013), the Wisconsin Court System received federal funding from the US Department of Justice through various grants, including a $50,677 STOP grant, $96,000 JAG grant, and $200,000 BJA Adult Drug Court Discretionary Grant award. The Wisconsin Court System also receives federal funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for three Children s Court Improvement Program grant awards totaling $577,524. Some counties receive federal funding directly for circuit court programs through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), juvenile court grants, treatment court grants, child support cooperative agreements, and law enforcement sources. Section II. Needs Assessment Population According to the US Census Bureau 2011 American Community Survey (ACS), Wisconsin s total household population over the age of 5 was 5,362,567. Out of the state household population, 177,233 identified as speaking English less than very well, making the state LEP population 3.3%. 2 Table 1 shows the top ten languages other than English spoken at home and the percentage of that language identifying as LEP. Table 1: Household Languages other than English Aged 5 or Older with LEP Percentage 3 Languages other than English Spoken at Home, Total Household Population Age 5 or Older: Wisconsin Number Percentage of Total Population Percentage Considered LEP Spanish or Spanish Creole 238, % 45% Hmong 40, % 43.2% German 37,607 8% 18.4% Chinese 14, % 54.7% French (incl. Patois & Cajun) 13, % 15.9% Other West Germanic Languages 10, % 22.9% Polish 7, % 25.2% Other Asian Languages 6, % 28.6% Russian 6, % 45.8% African Languages 6, % 31.4% Arabic 5, % 32.7% US Department of Justice (USDOJ) Four-Factor Test USDOJ has derived a four-factor test for agencies to assess language services: 1. Number or proportion of LEP persons in the service area. 2 Data derived from the decennial census or American Community Survey defines the term limited English proficient to mean any person age 5 and older who reported speaking English not at all, not well, or well on their survey questionnaire. Persons who speak only English or who reported speaking English very well were considered proficient in English. 3 Table 1 data was taken from the US Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey (ACS); 2000 Decennial Census; Steven Ruggles, Matthew Sobek, Trent Alexander, et. al., Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 3.0 [IPUMS %] (Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center 2011) See Migration Policy Institute (MPI) Data Hub for Wisconsin found at rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

6 2. Frequency with which LEP individuals use the particular program or service. 3. Nature and importance of the program or service: compulsory nature of a program is strong evidence of its importance. 4. Resources available and cost-benefit analysis: expectations are lower for smaller agencies, and agencies can limit services where the cost exceeds the benefit. Applying the four factors to Wisconsin: 1. Wisconsin s LEP population is estimated at 3.3% of its total population. However, eight counties have LEP populations higher than the state average. 4 is a spreadsheet showing foreign language speakers by Wisconsin county over the age of 5 who identified as speaking English less than very well. According to the 2008 ACS 1-year survey estimates, the state s Deaf population comprises approximately 3.2% of the total state population The incidence of LEP individuals using court services depends on the case type involved. Most circuit courts see a higher frequency of LEP court users in criminal, traffic, family and small claims cases. 3. Court services are compulsory for many case types and often the only way to handle a problem. 4. While the Director s Office and appellate courts are a state-funded branch of government with access to the resources of the state government as a whole, the state has faced budget deficits in the past several budget biennia. The circuit courts are funded by a mix of state, county and local dollars. Interpreter services are paid by the counties initially and reimbursed by the state quarterly at rates set by state statute. Wisconsin counties also face ongoing budget cuts. Chart 1 shows total interpreter expenses incurred by the county and the amount of state reimbursement reported by the counties from calendar years Individual counties with LEP populations higher than the state estimate of 3.3% include Milwaukee (6.7%); Clark (4.5%); Dane (4.5%); Walworth (4.4%); Brown (4.2%); Kenosha (4.2%); Sheboygan (3.8%) and Racine (3.6%). This county specific information was derived from the. 5The estimated Deaf population does not include institutionalized persons or in other words, people who are incarcerated. 6County interpreter costs and county reported reimbursement information is from annual reporting prepared by Clerks of Court and submitted to the Director s Office. These numbers do not reflect the State expenditures for the 7 th Judicial Administrative District (JAD) interpreter pilot which picked up 100% of the costs incurred by counties within the 7 th JAD from September 1, 2009 through June 30, rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

7 Chart 1: County Interpreter Costs and County Reported Reimbursement ( ) $1,116, $1,723, $1,188, $1,622, $1,248, $1,611, $1,148, $1,702, $1,170, $1,664, $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 State Reimbursements County Intepreter Costs Statewide Responsibilities The Director s Office has made great progress to improve language access services statewide since the beginning of the Court Interpreter Program (hereinafter CIP ) in The Supreme Court has supported these efforts through requests for additional funding, statutory changes, and changes to court rules. Through the CIP, the Director s Office maintains its central role in training and testing interpreters; training judges, court staff and other stakeholders; translating vital statewide court documents; and pursuing statutory changes and funding as needed. The interpreter program is described on the court s website at Supreme Court and Court of Appeals The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals are responsible for paying for interpreter expenses needed during all proceedings under Wis. Stats (8)(a)2 and 3. Circuit Court Responsibilities Under Wisconsin law, the direct provision of interpreter services in all court proceedings, including scheduling and payment, is the responsibility of the circuit courts under Wis. Stats (3)(a) and (8)(a). Initial identification may be done by the clerk of courts office, a judicial assistant, or any other court staff. Interpreter services may also be requested by a party, an attorney, district attorney, public defender, community advocate, family member or friend. The ultimate responsibility for appointment of an interpreter belongs to the judge. Clerks of circuit court may appoint for interpreter services used in the clerk s office (3)(d). The circuit courts are responsible for providing assistance to LEP individuals outside of the courtroom, on the phone, at the clerks counter, and through various outreach programs the court provides. The primary obligation to pay for court interpreter services also rests with the county. Counties are reimbursed by the state from an annual appropriation to the Director s Office, under Wis. Stats (8)(a) and The criterion for state reimbursement is set by statute. Reimbursement is provided for all in-court proceedings in all case types regardless of indigency, at the clerks of court counter and for some out-of-court services with court approval. Wis. Stat (3)(e). rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

8 Municipal Court Responsibilities Municipal courts are responsible for providing interpreter services in accordance with Wis. Stat Administrative Office Responsibilities The administrative offices under the authority of the Supreme Court and Director s Office include District Court Administrators, Consolidated Court Automation Programs (CCAP), Medical Mediation Panels, Office of Court Operations, Office of Judicial Education, Office of Lawyer Regulation, Board of Bar Examiners, State Law Library, Office of Management Services, and the Clerk of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Each office is responsible for providing language assistance services in a timely manner to LEP individuals seeking their services. Section III. Court Interpreter Program The Director s Office began working on a long-range plan to improve court interpreter services and to create a system for certifying court interpreters in Creation of the CIP was based on recommendations of the Council of Language Access Coordinators (formerly the Consortium for Language Access in the Courts and hereinafter the Council ) at the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), which also served as a resource to USDOJ in developing the court-related LEP guidance. As a consequence, the services that the USDOJ guidance recommends are similar to what the Wisconsin court interpreter committee recommended and what the Wisconsin Supreme Court consistently requested for biennial budgets. Legislative and Funding Efforts In 1999 the Director s Office appointed the Committee to Improve Court Interpreting and Translation in the Wisconsin Courts (hereinafter the Committee ) which was composed of judges, clerks of court, court administrators, lawyers, interpreters, legislators, and representatives of the Hispanic, Hmong, and Deaf and hard of hearing communities. Since its creation, the Committee has made many successful recommendations for change: Raise the statutory rate of reimbursement so counties were reimbursed for court interpreter services at close to the actual market rate during that time. This measure, the necessary funding, and other changes were adopted by the legislature effective July 1, Institute a code of ethics for court interpreters, adopted by the Supreme Court effective July 1, Create a court interpreter training pilot program. In , the court used grant funding provided by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development Office of Refugee Services from federal refugee resettlement funds. Continue interpreter orientations, offer oral certification tests various spoken languages, and begin translation of court forms in , using federal Byrne grant funding. rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

9 Create a permanent court interpreter program position in the Director s Office responsible for training and certifying court interpreters to ensure quality services. This recommendation was implemented and a permanent position was approved by the legislature in Authorize reimbursement for all cases where an interpreter is needed - in civil as well as criminal cases, and for non-indigent as well as indigent parties. This measure was adopted by the legislature effective October 27, Increase reimbursement funding for counties to reflect higher LEP population and greater use of certified interpreters; increase interpreter mileage reimbursement rate; and approve a pilot program to determine whether a centralized scheduling and payment system for interpreter services would be a better option than the existing county coordination of interpreter services with state reimbursement. 7 These three measures were approved by the state legislature in Create new statutory language governing translation of evidentiary materials originating in a non-english language. This measure was adopted by the Supreme Court effective January 1, Modify statutory language to provide that counties may be reimbursed for court interpreter mileage up to a maximum of 100 miles for out-of-state travel from their residence to the Wisconsin state border and upon return a maximum of 100 miles from the state s border to their residence, in addition to their reimbursement for miles traveled within the state border. This measure was approved by the state legislature in The Committee continues to assist the Director s Office on statewide policy matters affecting all aspects of language access in the court system. Interpreter Training and Certification Testing The training and certification testing program is a crucial part of language access measures so as to ensure quality interpreter services. The orientation curriculum gives participants an overview of the state court system with emphasis on ethical conduct, legal terminology, court procedure, and basic legal interpreting skills. Both spoken language and qualified sign language interpreters are 7 The 7 th Judicial Administrative District (JAD) ran this pilot program from September 15, 2009 to November 18, The conclusions from the pilot program were that the courts in the 7 th JAD were better situated to respond to interpreter issues and needs as a result of the pilot experience with policies, procedures, and contracts that could be replicated at the local level. The most significant result of the pilot experience was a change in court culture regarding interpreter use. The use of certified interpreters was no longer a goal to attain, it was now expected. The courts discovered that a lack of local certified interpreters did not mean uncertified interpreters had to be used. The pilot proved that most court hearings could be conducted effectively with certified interpreters by telephone and that block scheduling was an effective method of justifying the costs of using onsite certified interpreters. Courts accepted that a late notice/emergency process could, with minimal delay, result in a telephone interpreter to proceed with a hearing that otherwise would have been rescheduled. Professional relationships were developed with certified interpreters. Ultimately, the courts became comfortable with the structure of the pilot and the quality of the interpreting services provided. For more details on the pilot, refer to the District 7 Court Interpreter Pilot Program Report, June 14, 2012 rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

10 eligible to attend. Since 2002, the interpreter program has trained over 1700 people speaking more than 50 different languages. Training and testing is primarily funded through participant fees. The Office of Refugee Services Program has provided scholarships for speakers of refugee languages to attend orientation ( ). Federal grant funding was also used to subsidize language specific training for Spanish interpreters (2004 and 2005) and Hmong interpreters (2006). In 2006, a Hmong-English legal glossary was completed with funding from the Office of Refugee Services and the Marathon County Bar association. In 2009, the CIP offered a 2 ½ day workshop for interpreters of Languages Other Than Spanish (LOTS) to address the shortage of qualified interpreters in LOTS languages. Funding was provided by a Wisconsin State Bar Foundation grant, the Office of Refugee Services, the Wisconsin Asian Bar Association, and the Children s Court Improvement Program (to include a specific component on juvenile and children s court terminology and procedure). Fourteen candidates who spoke Russian, Hmong, Somali and Mai-Mai were trained and given the opportunity to take the oral test at a reduced fee. In 2012, a newsletter was developed to inform interpreters about updates in the program, training opportunities, and additional state, national and international resources. The newsletter is now published twice a year and distributed via with archived issues posted on the court s website. In 2013, an additional training opportunity for interpreter candidates was implemented called Courtroom-to-Classroom. Participating circuit court judges have opened up their courtrooms to aspiring interpreters to gain a deeper understanding of legal terminology and procedure by having the interpreter observe proceedings and then sitting down with the judge one-on-one to review what happened. As of January 1, 2014 interpreters seeking certification will need to participate in a minimum of two hours of court observation through the Courtroom-to-Classroom project. In 2013, a recruitment brochure was created to attract qualified candidates to the field of court interpreting. It is anticipated that the brochure will be distributed to language departments at colleges and universities as well as to community based organizations and advocacy groups. Continuing education is not a requirement for court interpreters yet, however, the Committee has been exploring this option since In 2013, CCAP developed a reporting process for the interpreter program that allows court interpreters who engage in continuing education and professional development events to report their activities for appearance on the roster of interpreters. Interpreter Roster The CIP maintains a roster of trained interpreters available to work in the courts. This roster is used by state and municipal courts, lawyers, law enforcement agencies, and other agencies needing interpreters with legal training. To be listed on the roster, the interpreter must: complete orientation; rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

11 [for spoken language interpreters] pass a multiple choice test developed by the NCSC which covers English proficiency, legal concepts, and knowledge of the interpreter code of ethics, or a written language assessment. [for sign language interpreters] possess a generalist certificate from the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID) or other approved certifying body and hold an interpreting license from the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services. demonstrate oral proficiency as described below; sign an oath form to be filed with the CIP; meet character and fitness requirements set by the Director s Office; and keep current contact information on file. The roster is available on the court system website and is searchable by interpreter, language, level and county. It shows interpreters available to work in particular courts with current contact information, level of credentials as well as relevant training experience. Interpreter Oral Testing and Certification The Director s Office began oral testing of court interpreters in March An oral certification exam is a performance test which measures on-the-job interpreting skills in a legal setting. Based on testing, the CIP recognizes several levels of interpreter proficiency. The highest level of interpreter proficiency is certification. To become a certified court interpreter in Wisconsin, a spoken language interpreter must pass all three parts of the oral performance exam designed by the Council. The Director s Office also grants recognition to passing scores on NCSC certification exams from other states, the Federal Court Interpreter Certification Exam (FCICE), and the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators (NAJIT) exam. Sign language interpreters must pass tests leading to a legal certification from the RID. Provisional standing is given to spoken language interpreters who score at minimum levels on two out of three parts of the oral examination (provisional or provisional-b). Spanish interpreters are required to obtain certification within two years of attending orientation so provisional status for Spanish is temporary. Provisional standing is given to sign language interpreters who hold generalist certification by RID and who hold a license issued by the Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS)under Wis. Stat and meet other program requirements. A roster level of Authorized was created in 2011 for candidates who speak languages where no oral certification examination is available. The interpreter program administers Oral Proficiency Interviews (OPIs) through Language Testing International (LTI) to measure skills and grants recognition to people who score a Superior Level on the OPI. rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

12 Interpreters are presently listed as Authorized for Bulgarian, Hindi, Punjabi, Romanian, Serbo-Croatian and Urdu. Currently, 57 people passed the certification examination in Spanish; 1 in German; 1 in French; 1 in Russian; 4 in Polish, and 1 in Mandarin. There are 9 legally certified American Sign Language interpreters from on the roster. Interpreters who are certified and who reside in other states are also listed on the state roster through reciprocal arrangements between Wisconsin and those jurisdictions. Translation of Vital Statewide Court Forms The Director s Office began translating vital statewide court forms in 2005 and created a Supreme Court rule governing the procedure and format for translation of court forms. A combination of federal funding was used consisting of a Byrne grant, Children s Court Improvement Program and VAWA-STOP funding to perform the translations. The Committee reviews the forms annually and identifies new vital forms suitable for translation and brings those recommendations to the Records Management Committee (RMC) which is the statewide committee that maintains the forms. Table 3 provides a summary of current translated forms. Table 3: Vital Form Translations Type of Form Spanish Hmong Criminal 5 2 Civil-Domestic Violence 7 7 Family 1 General 2 Juvenile-CHIPS 9 Juvenile-Delinquency 10 2 Small Claims 1 TOTAL Participation with NCSC Activities Wisconsin became a member of the Council in The CIP manager actively participates in work groups with Council-related projects staffed by the NCSC. The program manager has served as a member of the Annual Meeting Planning Committee ( ), the Professional Issues Committee ( ), and Chair of the Professional Issues Committee ( ) The program manager currently serves as one of three state liaisons on the Language Access Advisory Committee which is a joint committee of the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) and Conference of Chief Judges (CCJ) Summit on Language Access in the Courts In October 2012, Wisconsin sent a five-person team to the Summit on Language Access in the Courts under a grant funded by the NCSC and the State Justice Institute (SJI). A language access action plan was developed that focused on several short-term and long-term priorities, including: 1) creating judicial efficiencies, 2) expanding the availability of qualified non-spanish language interpreters, 3) measuring effective use of interpreters, 4) researching various computer-based remote interpreting options for the court, 5) evaluating data collection needs and 6) recognizing new emerging languages entering the state. rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

13 Future Activities The CIP plans to implement several initiatives to improve court interpreter efficiencies and promote collegiality within the interpreting profession such as the using technology to provide interpreting services, developing a best practices paper on team interpreting, collaborating with local professional interpreting groups to provide more training opportunities and offering regular informal meeting opportunities for interpreters to network and share ideas on how to improve their work environment. Section IV. Language Access Resources Ensuring Quality Services While the choice of interpreter ultimately rests with the circuit courts, it is the recommendation of the Director s Office that a certified interpreter be the first choice for appointment whenever available. When a diligent effort has been made to find a certified court interpreter and none is readily available, the circuit court may appoint a non-certified court interpreter who is on the statewide roster. If a roster interpreter is not available, the court may appoint a non-certified interpreter who is not listed on the statewide roster and but who is otherwise qualified. The court may also use a video or telephone interpreter for short, non-evidentiary matters. Increasing the use of certified interpreters has been a priority issue monitored by the chief judges at their regularly scheduled meetings in 2006, 2007 and Table 4 shows the percentage of certified interpreter use statewide through December 31, 2012: Table 4: 2012 Certified Interpreter Hours and Percent by Language Language Total Hours 8 Certified Hours Percentage Spanish 18, , % ASL (includes use of CDIs*) 1, , % Hmong 1, % Other Spoken Languages 1, % TOTAL 23, , % *CDI stands for Certified Deaf Interpreter. A CDI is an interpreter who is Deaf who typically works as part of a team with a hearing sign interpreter. Website Information about training, hiring, and using interpreters is on the court s public website at The website contains information for judges and court staff about interpreting and translation related statutes, court rules, most state case law involving interpreting issues, position papers on specific topics as well as training videos. The site also has information for prospective interpreters on current training and testing schedules, study materials, training opportunities, program policies, legal glossaries continuing education reporting, and the roster of interpreters. 8Total hours refer to the hours eligible for reimbursement from the state to the county. The State does not reimburse for travel time, cancellation fees or other interpreter expenses a county may incur that exceed what is allowed by statute. rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

14 Language Access Tools During , the Director s Office distributed additional materials to help LEP individuals: I speak cards to assist in identifying what language a person speaks translated signage informing court users of interpreter services court documents and forms as they are translated identification of bilingual materials on the court website. Circuit Court Language Access Plans In , the CIP manager worked with the District Court Administrators and the clerks of courts to ensure the courts updated and in some instances developed language access plans for individual courthouses throughout the state. By 2012, the Director s Office had LAPs on file from all counties which outlined the policies and procedures the circuit courts use to address the needs of LEP court users. Procedures for Administrative Offices There may be instances when a member of the public who has LEP will contact court administrative offices. Contact may be in-person, via telephone, or through written communication ( , letter, grievance complaint). Administrative offices under the authority of the Supreme Court or Director s Office provide spoken and sign language assistance services through a state contract with Language Line which includes translation services. Section V. Training Education and Training The interpreter program, in conjunction with the Office of Judicial Education, has presented numerous programs on interpreters and interpreter-related issues which include: annual judicial conference (2002 and 2008); judicial college (2012 and 2013); juvenile and civil law judicial education seminars (2005 and 2011); criminal law and sentencing seminar (2008); family law seminar (2013); registrars in probate (2013); and clerks of circuit court conferences ( ). The interpreter program has made regular presentations on court interpreter training and certification at the annual conference of the state Office of Refugee Services ( and 2008). The interpreter program has presented similar programs to conferences of court commissioners (2003, 2008 and 2012); state prosecutors (2003, 2004 and 2008); attorneys (2003, 2004 and 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012); court reporters (2003); municipal judges (2003, 2004 and 2008); victimwitness staff (2005); domestic violence advocacy groups (2007 and 2009); and other interested groups. rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

15 The CIP manager presented a session on judicial training at the Summit on Language Access in Houston, TX in October 2012 and at the Annual Business Meeting of the Council in Salem, MA in April The manager was also part of a training panel at the National Association of Court Managers in San Antonio, TX in July 2013 and the Court Technology Conference in Baltimore, MD in September Specific LEP training for circuit court staff and other court related offices Front line staff members are often the first points of contact with LEP individuals. Deputy clerks of court and judicial assistants should be trained on ways to identify language issues and deliver appropriate services. Staff should also be reminded of the requirements of the ADA. As new employees are hired, information on the language assistance plan and the ADA should be included in their new employee orientation. The CIP has provided specific LEP training to the Department of Corrections, correctional facilities, Office of Lawyer Regulation, State Law Library, equal opportunities commission (2005) and local law enforcement (2007). In 2012, training was provided at the regional clerks of court conference on how to better serve LEP court customers. The interpreter program has conducted specific site visits with individual courts to provide resources and to help improve services to LEP court users. Section VI. Public Input Copies of this language assistance plan will be provided to the public upon request and are posted on the court s statewide website. The Director s Office will notify statewide LEP-related advocacy groups that the plan is available. If appropriate, plans may be revised to reflect public comments and suggestions. Section VII. Complaint Procedure Complaints regarding lack of language assistance services during court proceedings may be brought to the attention of the clerk of court, district court administrator, CIP manager or presiding judge of the specific court or in accordance with the policies and procedures set forth in the circuit court s local LAP. In some instances a request or complaint should take the form of a motion directed to the judge who is assigned to the case. Complaints regarding lack of language assistances services or the quality of the language assistance provided at any of the Director s Office or Supreme Court s administrative offices may be brought to the attention of the Director, the CIP Manager, or the individual department manager. A list of department managers with contact information can be found in Attachment B. Interpreters who have allegedly engaged in unethical or unprofessional conduct in the course of performing their interpreter duties should be similarly reported. A grievance procedure for filing complaints against interpreters was developed and is posted on the court s website at rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

16 Section VIII. Monitoring Evaluation of the Statewide LAP Biennially, the Director s Office will review the statewide LAP for any required changes resulting from changes in federal or state laws, demographic shifts, or operating procedure. Evaluation of the Circuit Court LAPs Biennially, through the CIP, the Director s Office will coordinate with the circuit courts to review the effectiveness of their local plans, identify problems, and propose action. Elements of the evaluation will include: number of LEP persons receiving court interpreters determination if additional services should be provided assessment of whether staff members adequately understand language assistance policies feedback from community groups and individuals Ultimately, each circuit court is responsible for conducting a local needs assessment and developing a plan to meet the court-related needs of the local LEP population. The courts may choose to do this in conjunction with other county offices as they evaluate their own language services. The courts are encouraged to update its needs assessment and determine whether changes to its LAP are required. This task may involve tracking the number of interpreters requested for each language, consulting new demographic information, observing trends in court usage, etc. Any amended versions of a circuit court s local LAP shall be filed with the Director s Office. Language Access Contact Person for the State Courts Carmel Capati, Office of Court Operations, 110 East Main St. #410, Madison WI 53703; phone ; carmel.capati@wicourts.gov. The effective date of this plan as amended is the 25 th day of November, A. John Voelker Director of State Courts rev. version 11/25/ P a g e

17 Wisconsin Adams Ashland Barron Bayfield Brown Buffalo Burnett TOTAL POPULATION 5,283,093 20,181 15,224 43,105 14, ,548 12,947 14,991 Speak English less than "very well" 170, , Percentage 3.2% 1.5% 0.7% 1.3% 0.6% 4.2% 1.6% 0.7% Spanish or Spanish Creole: 234, , Speak English less than "very well" 104, , Percentage of LEP Population 61.4% 52.0% 21.7% 45.7% 20.2% 71.1% 78.7% 60.6% French (incl. Patois, Cajun): 12, Speak English less than "very well" 2, Percentage of LEP Population 1.4% 3.4% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 3.0% French Creole: Speak English less than "very well" Italian: 5, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Portuguese or Portuguese Creole: 1, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% German: 37, , Speak English less than "very well" 7, Percentage of LEP Population 4.3% 8.8% 1.9% 13.5% 2.2% 2.8% 17.4% 5.1% Yiddish: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other West Germanic languages: 8, Speak English less than "very well" 2, Percentage of LEP Population 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 2.9% 0.0% Scandinavian languages: 3, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.3% 0.7% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 7.1% Greek: 2, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Russian: 6, Speak English less than "very well" 2, Percentage of LEP Population 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 6.2% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Polish: 8, Speak English less than "very well" 2, Percentage of LEP Population 1.4% 23.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Serbo-Croatian: 5, Speak English less than "very well" 2, Percentage of LEP Population 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Other Slavic languages: 4, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 3.4% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Armenian: Speak English less than "very well" Persian: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Gujarati: 1, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1

18 Wisconsin Adams Ashland Barron Bayfield Brown Buffalo Burnett Hindi: 4, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Urdu: 2, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Indic languages: 4, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Other Indo-European languages: 4, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 1.1% 5.9% 100.0% 100.0% 60.0% 0.0% #DIV/0! 0.0% Chinese: 12, Speak English less than "very well" 6, Percentage of LEP Population 3.6% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 2.5% 0.0% 9.1% Japanese: 2, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 9.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Korean: 4, Speak English less than "very well" 2, Percentage of LEP Population 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% Mon-Khmer, Cambodian: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Hmong: 37, , Speak English less than "very well" 15, , Percentage of LEP Population 9.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 14.3% 0.0% 0.0% Thai: 1, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.3% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Laotian: 5, Speak English less than "very well" 2, Percentage of LEP Population 1.2% 0.0% 6.6% 0.7% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% Vietnamese: 2, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Other Asian languages: 5, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 1.0% 0.0% 29.2% 1.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Tagalog: 4, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 0.8% 2.0% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% Other Pacific Island languages: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% Navajo: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Native North American languages: 4, Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.5% 0.0% 26.4% 0.0% 10.1% 0.2% 1.0% 7.1% Hungarian: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.1% 7.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 6.1% Arabic: 4, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2

19 Wisconsin Adams Ashland Barron Bayfield Brown Buffalo Burnett Hebrew: Speak English less than "very well" African languages: 4, Speak English less than "very well" 1, Percentage of LEP Population 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 22.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Other and unspecified languages: 1, Speak English less than "very well"

20 Calumet Chippewa Clark Columbia Crawford Dane Dodge Door TOTAL POPULATION 44,603 57,524 31,638 52,971 15, ,159 83,842 26,729 Speak English less than "very well" 1, , ,042 1, Percentage 2.7% 1.3% 4.5% 1.6% 0.5% 4.5% 1.7% 1.3% Spanish or Spanish Creole: 1, , ,038 2, Speak English less than "very well" ,982 1, Percentage of LEP Population 60.7% 33.9% 22.7% 57.3% 81.6% 49.8% 80.9% 84.0% French (incl. Patois, Cajun): , Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.3% 1.7% 0.2% 2.1% 0.0% 1.6% 1.2% 3.4% French Creole: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Italian: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.0% Portuguese or Portuguese Creole: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% German: , Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 6.5% 10.5% 23.0% 20.8% 12.6% 3.1% 6.1% 7.7% Yiddish: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Other West Germanic languages: , Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 1.0% 3.2% 45.8% 5.9% 0.0% 0.3% 0.1% 1.7% Scandinavian languages: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 1.5% 0.2% 0.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Greek: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% Russian: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.4% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.7% 0.3% 0.0% Polish: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.3% 2.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.3% 2.4% 0.0% Serbo-Croatian: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Other Slavic languages: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 1.3% 0.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 2.6% Armenian: Persian: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% Gujarati: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4

21 Calumet Chippewa Clark Columbia Crawford Dane Dodge Door Hindi: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Urdu: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% Other Indic languages: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 2.2% 0.0% Other Indo-European languages: Speak English less than "very well" % 0.0% 40.0% 46.2% #DIV/0! 32.4% 0.0% 100.0% Chinese: , Speak English less than "very well" , Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.5% 1.2% 1.1% 0.0% 12.1% 0.8% 0.0% Japanese: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% Korean: , Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 1.3% 2.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.5% 0.2% 0.0% Mon-Khmer, Cambodian: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% Hmong: , Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 21.9% 43.6% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% Thai: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% Laotian: , Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% Vietnamese: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 3.0% 0.0% Other Asian languages: , Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 2.4% 0.0% Tagalog: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 3.2% 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7% 0.9% 0.1% 0.0% Other Pacific Island languages: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 0.0% 0.0% Navajo: Other Native North American languages: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% Hungarian: Arabic: Speak English less than "very well" Percentage of LEP Population 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5